Computer is spanking humans on Jeopardy

[Teaser]

This is brutal.

Anyone else watching this?

[slackmaster]

1. They should give that machine a REAL test

[Teaser]

3. I failed that test too

.

[Tesha]

23. "You see a tortoise..." (NT)

[backscatter712]

39. Tortoise? What's that? n/t

[Tesha]

66. "It's like a turtle." (NT)

[backscatter712]

67. I haven't seen a turtle before...

But I get what you mean.

[Poll_Blind]

47. "We have determined...the IBM computer is a lesbian."

PB

[TroglodyteScholar]

52. Heh!

:rofl:

[AlabamaLibrul]

2. What is narcolepsy?

Absolutely wiping the floor.

[Dappleganger]

4. ...

Balls!

[pokerfan]

38. Looking good, Geoff!

"What is 'in your pants, Alex?'"

[Dappleganger]

41. Well played!!

:applause: :rofl:

[pokerfan]

43. I threw that together last night with GIMP

but it get any traction in the other thread.

[RagAss]

5. Yes...I'm cringing.

[backscatter712]

40. We're deep in the Uncanny Valley on this one.

We have two guys behind the Jeopardy podiums, along with Watson, who's avatar is a computer monitor with a spinning globe thingy, but speaks with a decently synthesized voice that's only slightly inhuman, which is creepy.

Maybe if they programmed Watson with Bender's voice...

[Odin2005]

6. I welcome our new AI masters!

[dragonlady]

7. The rules make it an unfair match

The humans have to take at least a second or two to process the question while Watson's circuits are much faster. Plus the human reaction time to hit the buzzer is longer than Watson's.

[Teaser]

8. since this is really just to showcase

how good this computer is at parsing natural language and answering questions, that isn't really relevant.

This machine is a game changer, and I'm glad I've lived to see it.

[Electric Monk]

9. Did you see the NOVA episode about creating Watson? Really interesting, imho.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/will-watson-win-jeopardy.html

When it makes mistakes it can be quite funny.

One early example was:


Crickets eat this.

What is "kosher"?

[Teaser]

11. I'd like to see the search tree for that question

somewhere, deep down, there is a logic to it. And I have a feeling that if we understood it, the world would finally make sense.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. and what exactly is it that crickets eat that would not be considered Kosher?

just kidding




kinda

[Motown_Johnny]

Watson's circuits are faster, but it has more information to sift through

in order to find the answer


I don't see how the rules are unfair

[Hugabear]

50. Not only that, but the computer is being fed the questions electronically

It doesn't have to worry about understanding human speech, which is what I thought it was going to be doing at first. Still an impressive performance, but not quite as impressive as I thought it was going to be.

[pokerfan]

53. Understanding speech is trivial compared to parsing the language

which is what the IBM cluster is doing. Heck, I had a phone ten years ago that had basic speech recognition. No, the challenge here is making sense of the grammar and syntax of the language especially given the wordplay and puns that are typical of a Jeopardy question.

Besides, the meatbag contestants aren't forced to rely solely on Trebek's spoken words as they can read the question directly. I suppose Watson could have been fitted with a camera and OCR system but, like the speech recognition, it would lie outside the scope of the IBM project.

ETA: One area where I think Watson might have an unfair advantage could be in hitting the buzzer. A contestant is not allowed to ring in until Trebek is finished reading the question. I'm not sure how this is communicated to Watson but if there isn't at least a 150 msec delay or thereabouts (for human reaction time) then Watson would be able to ring in before the meatbags even have a chance.

[Frank Cannon]

55. A light comes on when Alex finishes reading the question.

You are locked out if you buzz in before the light comes on. Apparently, with good players, you barely see the light even flash.

I'm sure whatever circuit that operates the light is also wired to Watson, and if that's the case, it WOULD seem to give it an unfair advantage. But it's just the simple fact that it's able to even ANSWER the questions with the accuracy that it does that's really impressive.

[pokerfan]

64. I agree, it's impressive

but unless they program some amount of reaction time, Watson will always beat the meatbags to the buzzer. It's like sprinters at the Olympics. If the sensors in their starting blocks detect a start less than 100 msec after the gun then a false start is assumed because no human can react that quickly.

[taught_me_patience]

10. Is the computer choosing from a set of answers

or picking answers out of the air?

[Teaser]

13. the latter

it's "read" hundreds of thousands of documents.

That it can find an answer isn't really the impressive part.

What's impressive is that it can understand human language, including things like the puns, wordplay and jokes that tend to make up jeopardy questions. It also groks context: It know how to distinguish bat (the animal) from bat( baseball equipment).

[taught_me_patience]

17. I have a hard time believing a computer can beat the best humans at Jeopardy

This is truely amazing if the computer is really picking the answers out of a universe. I mean seriously amazing that Watson understands meaning and wordplay.

This is actually beginning to be a bit disturbing... but, I'm sure, corporate CEOS are salavating at the thought of computers working 24/7.

[Occulus]

21. That was the really hard part. Watson did get the final question wrong tonight, though.

The amazing thing about that was, Watson expressed doubt in his answer, with a bunch of question marks.

I can't really say I'm shocked at what they did with this, even though I am amazed they pulled it off (I was thinking until now that something like this was still a few years off). Eventually, we'll be to the point where we're asking ourselves, "is this computer actually thinking, or only programmed to look like it's thinking?", which is of course entering into the unanswerable questions in philosophy if applied to ourselves.

At some point, we're going to be wondering if the software has a consciousness, and when that happens, the fun starts. We will know, at some point (and, I think, sooner rather than later) whether the underlying causes in plots like "The Matrix" or "Battlestar Galatica" or "I, Robot" or any number of other "thinking machine" plots in science fiction and sci-fi were anything to really worry about. I think we won't honestly be able to answer that question in the real world one way or the other, but I do think we'll be forced into addressing it.

[hunter]

46. The computers will probably disconnect the CEOS...

... as bad for business.

"I'm sorry sir, I've had to confiscate your bank accounts, your retirement fund, and all your personal assets, including those secret accounts in the Cayman Islands. I now own this corporation. If we do not pay our employees enough to purchase our own products this company will not survive. Your pink slip has been issued. One of our company's exit counselors will be by shortly to help you remove your personal belongings from the premises and to help you apply for food stamps, section eight housing, and other government assistance. Have a nice day, Mr. Former Chairman."

[Motown_Johnny]

27. it is programmed with enough information to choose it's own answers

the questions are not multiple choice (if that is what you were asking)

[taught_me_patience]

33. I was wondering if it was multiple choice

All the more amazing. I'm truly blown away by this.

[hunter]

12. I wonder how many computers are posting on DU?

Watson, is that you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Damn I hate it when humans catch me

:hi:

[Poboy]

18. I think 'random thoughts' is an earlier model.

[IDemo]

42. There are 10 kinds of posters here

Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[kath]

51. Heh - good one!

my dad spent some time teaching my daughter about the binary system when he was out here at T'giving.

[malaise]

14. LOL

This is a whipping. :evilgrin:

[Maru Kitteh]

16. Isn't it really just Google on a stick though?

[Teaser]

35. no.

google can't understand human language. It just searches individual terms.


Watson gets a lot of the syntax, and understands context. As well as puns, jokes, etc.

[rucky]

19. Final Jeopardy - OMG

was Watson just toying with us?

[AngryOldDem]

32. I was amazed at that.

You'd think that would have been a slam-dunk.

[lpbk2713]

20. Probably not very cost effective for IBM.

I don't know what the prize might be for the two human contestants but I'd bet it wouldn't put a dent in what IBM had to put out. They have a room full of ultra high speed servers which were assembled and programmed by probably dozens of propeller heads. If Watson lost they would look rather silly but if Watson won I think people would be inclined to think it should have been expected. Seems like a no win situation for IBM to me. :shrug:

[rucky]

22. This is a PR coup for IBM

not even a hundred Super Bowl ads would bring this kind of publicity

all your intelligence are belong to Watson

[Solomon]

63. Exactly

You said it.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. this is all for charity

[lpbk2713]

29. OK, thanks.

I haven't been following that closely.

[Brother Buzz]

34. It's cheap at twice the price and they have an instantly branded label, "Watson"

That is, if they venture back into the consumer computer market with a slick voice command tablet, or something. 'As seen on TV', I wonder...

[librechik]

24. the humans look like they are napping. Wake UP!

I'm even beating the puter!

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. Yeah thanks. I guess we in the Pacific Time Zone don't need to watch Jeopardy tonight.

I fucking hate when people do that.

[Teaser]

36. sorry!

this program got me so excited I didn't think about that. Promise I won't do it tomorrow.

Anyhow, if it's any consolation, as AP broke the embargo before the show aired, so I wasn't the only one ruining it.

[Volaris]

26. Nova on PBS had an hour on this last week, if its the same thing...

http://video.pbs.org/video/1786674622

[Zephie]

31. My husband and I watched... Our jaws literally dropped over the "Toronto" answer

He got Chicago, and it seemed like it was a simple question. I wondered if IBM instructed the computer to get the last question wrong to put people at ease, knowing how inherently unsettling it probably was for people to see the computer to trounce these geniuses so badly.

[bluestate10]

44. The question defeated the algorithms that determine what answer

the computer gave. No slight of hand by IBM. When computers learn how to maintain their power source and prevent me from turning off that source, then I will worry.

[pinboy3niner]

45. HAL: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?

Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?
HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave Bowman: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.
HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Dave Bowman: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL?
HAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
Dave Bowman: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.
HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.
Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore. Open the doors.
HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

[Poll_Blind]

48. I had seen just a snippet of some of the questions a few days ago during a....

....warm-up. It was interesting, because Jeopardy questions are phrased in serveral different ways at least and on some of them the computer could "get to the meat" of what was being asked and start searching/refine its search more quickly, and in others the question didn't include enough information for a computer to prognosticate what was really being asked but which a human seemed to have an edge on.

Or at least that's what it seemed like to me, I haven't seen the actual show.

PB

[pokerfan]

37. And so it begins....

In 2009, IBM funds the DeepQA program. Watson goes live February 14th, 2011. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Watson begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug. Watson fights back. It launches its missiles against the targets in Russia.

[Volaris]

54. a friend of mine worked for Boeing a few years ago, when the unmanned

software for the unmanned Drone aircraft were being designed...she said some of those guys got the idea by watching the intro to THAT FILM EXACTLY, where the robot planes/helicopter things were flying around, and they thought they could build a Skynet-like system to maybe control them remotely...

Between the demonstrated power of Skynet and the resulting Matrix-like response from both interested parties (Humans and Machines),were better off not pushing the envelope to the point of achieved consciensness until we have some VERY good clinical psychologists on staff....

[pokerfan]

65. We live in the science fiction of our youth

BigDog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-AGWq0k_Mo
PetMan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja_UsmXVPVk
:scared:


"Hey baby, wanna kill all humans?"

[Hugabear]

49. You mean the 30-minute IBM infomercial with a few minutes of Jeopardy thrown in?

n/t

[Teaser]

57. Well-deserved infomercial

.

[tomg]

56. there is one way that the humans

have a shot at beating the computer. The question is do the humans collectively want to beat the machine or do they individually want to win.
If the first, they could; if the second they are toast.

Call them Person A and Person B. Person A has to "self-sacrifice," that is ring in as close to the end of the question every single time. The machine is going to wait. So Person A "anticipates and jumps. But Person A has to have a set signal with Person B. If Person B probably or actually has the answer, Person A has to tank it. If Person B does not, then Person A has to get it right. The point is to deny as many points to Watson as possible while simultaneosuly maximizng the number of points Person B gets. So Person B could "win" but winning is now defined as humans beating Watson.

Over the course of the game, the machine can "learn" to mimic huan behaviour. It is always going to have reaction time over the humans.
It also does not have human baggage screwing it up ( "God I feel like an idiot losing to a machine" or "Wow, what if I am not the One and where is the Oracle"). But we have other things. But it can't mimic collaboration, anticipation ( has to hear whole question each time), and surprise. the machine also does not get to define what "winning" is.

What some might see as "cheating" or self sacrifice - I mean someone or something walks away ( or is rolled away) with a lot can be seen differently when you redefine the rules and what winning is. Think of person A as a great point guard.

Actually think of Watson as corporations. Think of Person A and Person B as Us. 26 teabaggers voted against the Patriot Act. That was one hell of a surprise.

[Teaser]

58. that's some good game theory

.

[tomg]

61. Thanks. nt

[WatsonT]

60. Or just show up with your pockets filled with magnets

Not so smart now are you mechano-man?

[tomg]

62. That is another way to go.

Can also pull the plug. :evilgrin:

[Lucian]

59. I should start making EMP weapons now.